Should tuned discs be legal for tournament use?

Chuck Kennedy wrote:Just pointing out that the fundamental issue for this topic is making sure that some players don't have a technological edge not available to other players either due to tuning capability, disc production being withheld or no production any more. Seems like whatever rules revisions are needed should address all three areas in a consistent manner.

Wouldn't "tuning capability" be a skill? Saying that geoloseth has an unfair advantage over me because of his ability to tune a disc would be like saying Cam Todd has an unfair advantage over me because of his ability to putt. I don't think it's comparable to disc availability at all since as I said before, anybody can choose to tune their discs. Therefore it's not "a technological edge not available to other players."

Is there any kind of tuning that could be done, that would produce a flight path that couldn't be gotten with the right choice of "standard" disc?? I don't get why anyone would care if someone "tunes" a disc.

Is there any kind of tuning that could be done, that would produce a flight path that couldn't be gotten with the right choice of "standard" disc?? I don't get why anyone would care if someone "tunes" a disc.

Probably not at this point. However, the rule also addresses removing plastic. If removing plastic is allowed, then rims could be made sharper than allowed and rim height to diameter ratio lower than allowed. Either or both of these could result in a disc that flies farther than anything out there.

If tuning is limited to what a player can do to manually bend a new disc to tweak the shape or bend a bent disc back closer to its original shape, then that should be allowed.

stoneman wrote:Is there any kind of tuning that could be done, that would produce a flight path that couldn't be gotten with the right choice of "standard" disc?? I don't get why anyone would care if someone "tunes" a disc.

The only thing tuning does to a disc is make it fly more HSS or less HSS. That's it. There is nothing special about this. But I might have to try tuning one half of it overstable and the other half of the disc understable. I wonder what that would do to it????

Chuck Kennedy wrote:If a disc gets beat up by a RHBH thrower, does it have the same level of instability if a LHBH thrower then uses it throwing opposite spin?

It would be logical to assume that it would be the case. The only things that come to mind that might make it different would be very irregular warping or small gashes in the nose that formed along lines in the direction of rhbh spin.

I don't know a lot about them, but what about the old DGA "Factor ___" discs? One old schooler around here had a "Factor 5 Stingray", as I understand it, they shave off the bottom part of the wing to make a disc less stable. Are these discs actually legal? They're not modified by the player, but they ARE modified.

They're still shown in the PDGA Approved disc table for DGA. I find it interesting that if you compare the overall height of the factored disc to the baseline disc or compare rim heights, they are the same. That would mean that whatever shaving / factoring was done was less than half a millimeter to fall in those measuring tolerances, which isn't much.

Yeah, the factored discs were done by DGA. Ed made sure everything was on the up and up with those, so they are legal.

It is interesting to note how little factoring it takes to alter the flight an how hard it is to detect such a thing. During the development of the Warlock and Magic I knew of multiple people that I played unsanctioned rounds with that had factored Wizards and Warlocks. The discs were factored by GDS and given to players as research, but nobody tried to get them back and destroy them once the research was done. These discs are pretty hard to detect unless you are really examining the disc. Knowing the people that I know have them, I think it's a pretty safe bet that some of them have been used in PDGA sanctioned play.

Again it comes back to the kind of sport we are. Dave McCormack talks big about supporting disc testing at events and wants a crew at NT's just to weigh discs and approve them for each event. We don't have the money or the infrastructure set up to do that. If we did, I suppose there could be a template that could be used for each mold that your disc would have to be able to meet some standard variation on, so if a disc was over tuned (or too beat up, since that loophole would have to be closed) and could not meet the template standards, it would be tossed out as illegal. This could happen...right about the time PDGA events get as much money thrown at them as NASCAR races. At our current levels, we don't even have the money to develop the templates, much less pay a team of folks to use them.

If a disc gets beat up by a RHBH thrower, does it have the same level of instability if a LHBH thrower then uses it throwing opposite spin?

The same thing would go for a new disc...basically is the stability of disc A effected by the direction of the spin. I have not heard of anything, for example lefties in mass saying Firebirds really are not all that stable, that would anecdotally indicate that as being true. But how can we really know for sure? The spin in one direction or the other may slightly effect stability, but how would you measure that?

Working Stiff wrote:.... factored Wizards and Warlocks. The discs were factored by GDS... used in PDGA sanctioned play.

can't a manufacturer make any modification they want?

i understood the rule to be such that, if someone mailed me their QJ and i took a router to it and gave it a notch (on the clock, i guess?) and sent it back, it would be legal.

or would i have to send my frankenquidulous in for appoval?
did Innova have to resubmit the Champ models once they started trimming the flash off the nose? seeing as how so many tech specs still show a fully-flashed diameter, i think not.

Working Stiff wrote:.... factored Wizards and Warlocks. The discs were factored by GDS... used in PDGA sanctioned play.

can't a manufacturer make any modification they want?

i understood the rule to be such that, if someone mailed me their QJ and i took a router to it and gave it a notch (on the clock, i guess?) and sent it back, it would be legal.

or would i have to send my frankenquidulous in for appoval?did Innova have to resubmit the Champ models once they started trimming the flash off the nose? seeing as how so many tech specs still show a fully-flashed diameter, i think not.

If that is the case, THERE is a loophole that need to be closed. THAT allows just what Chuck was saying...a disc that you and I can't buy on the street that a sponsored player can get.

You could be right. It is done by the manufacturer. 802.01 A. says "discs used in play must meet all of the conditions set forth in the Official PDGA Technical Standards Document." Chuck says the measurements are the same for the factored discs and the regular discs, so if factoring keeps you in that same range it might adhere to the tech specs for that disc. Actually, if the disc in question is made from the same plastic that the disc approval was done it, it might be closer to the measurements than a non-factored disc in that mold using a different plastic.

The approved factored discs were Innova discs factored by DGA, so those would have needed approval...not done by the manufacturer.

I don't know a lot about them, but what about the old DGA "Factor ___" discs? One old schooler around here had a "Factor 5 Stingray", as I understand it, they shave off the bottom part of the wing to make a disc less stable. Are these discs actually legal? They're not modified by the player, but they ARE modified.

They're still shown in the PDGA Approved disc table for DGA. I find it interesting that if you compare the overall height of the factored disc to the baseline disc or compare rim heights, they are the same. That would mean that whatever shaving / factoring was done was less than half a millimeter to fall in those measuring tolerances, which isn't much.

Yeah, the factored discs were done by DGA. Ed made sure everything was on the up and up with those, so they are legal.

It is interesting to note how little factoring it takes to alter the flight an how hard it is to detect such a thing. During the development of the Warlock and Magic I knew of multiple people that I played unsanctioned rounds with that had factored Wizards and Warlocks. The discs were factored by GDS and given to players as research, but nobody tried to get them back and destroy them once the research was done. These discs are pretty hard to detect unless you are really examining the disc. Knowing the people that I know have them, I think it's a pretty safe bet that some of them have been used in PDGA sanctioned play.

See now, something about that just irks me. Why are the DGA discs so much more acceptable than the Gateway ones? I'm sure that Ed had to show some sort of standard process of his factoring, but it seems like it's kind of picking and choosing of the applicability of the rule. Couldn't somebody at home, while "legally sanding out abrasions from normal wear", effectively factor their own discs?

technically, Innova and DGA are both the manufacturer. MILL is considered the manufacturer of the QJ, and Innova is the contractor who fulfills the actual production... so either company could make legal modifications.

Working Stiff wrote:802.01 A. says "discs used in play must meet all of the conditions set forth in the Official PDGA Technical Standards Document." Chuck says the measurements are the same for the factored discs and the regular discs, so if factoring keeps you in that same range it might adhere to the tech specs for that disc. Actually, if the disc in question is made from the same plastic that the disc approval was done it, it might be closer to the measurements than a non-factored disc in that mold using a different plastic.

i read that rule to say that discs used in play must conform to the Tech Standards, ie flexibility and weight ... not that discs used in play must match the numbers assigned to that mold in the Approved list.

case in point... QJs and QMS are not the same diameter as the List says. since Innova trims the nose flash now, it takes off about 0.01 cm of diameter. people still claim that a JLS and a QJ are different molds because of that number.

What makes the factored discs "legal" is that they were submitted and got PDGA approval. As long as a product with consistent specs that meet the guidelines is produced in quantities over 500, it doesn't matter how it was manufactured or tweaked to make the model that was approved.

I don't know a lot about them, but what about the old DGA "Factor ___" discs? One old schooler around here had a "Factor 5 Stingray", as I understand it, they shave off the bottom part of the wing to make a disc less stable. Are these discs actually legal? They're not modified by the player, but they ARE modified.

They're still shown in the PDGA Approved disc table for DGA. I find it interesting that if you compare the overall height of the factored disc to the baseline disc or compare rim heights, they are the same. That would mean that whatever shaving / factoring was done was less than half a millimeter to fall in those measuring tolerances, which isn't much.

Yeah, the factored discs were done by DGA. Ed made sure everything was on the up and up with those, so they are legal.

It is interesting to note how little factoring it takes to alter the flight an how hard it is to detect such a thing. During the development of the Warlock and Magic I knew of multiple people that I played unsanctioned rounds with that had factored Wizards and Warlocks. The discs were factored by GDS and given to players as research, but nobody tried to get them back and destroy them once the research was done. These discs are pretty hard to detect unless you are really examining the disc. Knowing the people that I know have them, I think it's a pretty safe bet that some of them have been used in PDGA sanctioned play.

See now, something about that just irks me. Why are the DGA discs so much more acceptable than the Gateway ones? I'm sure that Ed had to show some sort of standard process of his factoring, but it seems like it's kind of picking and choosing of the applicability of the rule. Couldn't somebody at home, while "legally sanding out abrasions from normal wear", effectively factor their own discs?

Sorry, time frame problem. The discs we are talking about were regular production Innova discs like Aviars and Stingrays. DGA took those discs and factored them and submitted them to the PDGA for approval. This was wwwaaayyy back in time and has nothing to do with DGA being more "acceptable" than GDS.